MUHAMMAD YOUSAF AND 4 OTHERS Versus FAUJI TEXTILE MILLS AND OTHERS

These five appeals have been preferred against an order dated 27-6-74 passed by the learned Presiding Officer Junior Labour Court, Rawalpindi on the petitions of the employees filed under section 25-A of the I. R. O. against dismissal of the petitioners by the management. Punishment of dismissal was changed into that of termination by the learned Presiding Officer for the reason of young age of the petitioners etc. Hence manage ment has come into appeal to get an order of dismissal instead of termination and employees have come in appeal to get an order of termi nation ordered into that of re-instatement. As common questions of law and facts are involved in these appeals, therefore I propose to dispose them off by one order.

2. I have heard the learned counsels of the parties at length and have gone through the record of the Junior Labour Court as well as the impugned orders. Facts leading to these appeals and necessary for the disposal of these appeals briefly put are that the employees committed misconduct of misbehaviour with the General Manager of Fauji Textile Mills, Jhelum so much as they allegedly abused the General Manager. General Manager instead of deputing any of his subordinates, himself apprised the board of directors of the situation and they deputed a person as enquiry officer from outside the mill to enquire into the guilt of the employees.

Enquiry was held by that person and report was submitted to the General Manager who was the complainant in this case. After perusal of the enquiry report, General Manager passed an. order of dismissal against the employees.

3. The learned representative of the employees has relied upon a case decided by the Supreme Court-Muhammad Mohsin Siddiqui v. Government of West Pakistan (P L D 1964 S C 64) and Chairman WAPDA v. Labour Union (1967 P L C 768) and has vehemently urged that the General Manager being the complainant and a witness in these cases should not have passed orders of dismissal himself. His contention is that it is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done but should manifestly and undoubtedly seem to be done and in this case this principle has not been adhered to, when the orders of dismissal of the employees were passed by the complainant himself. General Manager had very much in view of this principle when he himself apprised the board of directors of the situation and requested them for appointment of an impartial officer from outside the mills. He should have submitted that enquiry report in the same way to the higher authorities than him and that authority should have given the personal hearing to the employees and have passed orders, they would have deemed fit. The learned counsel for the management stressed that as the orders were to be passed by the employer and General Manager being the employer, he was the proper person to pass such orders. General Manager of the concern is not the only person falling under the definition of an employer. Particularly when he himself is the complainant and a witness in the case, somebody else and not the complainant should have been the judge of his cause. I very much agree with the learned counsel for the employees that the General Manger was not the proper person to issue orders of dismissal and to that extent enquiry was defective. Some one else who is also not subordinate to the General Manager should have considered the enquiry report, have given the personal hearing to the employees, and have passed orders of punishment accordingly to his own conscience.

4. For the foregoing reasons I find that order of dismissal in the domestic enquiry was defective and so order of the learned Presiding Officer of the Junior Labour Court is not maintainable. I, therefore set aside and accept the appeals. Charge against the employees is very serious, it cannot be ignored. Report of the enquiry officer can be looked into again by an authority not subordinate to the General Manager and the employees can be dealt with according to principle of natural justice. Again question of back wages and other benefits will depend upon on that result. Appeals by the management are also disposed off accordingly.